1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARVIN L. CHARLES, Case No. 2:24-cv-00981-CV (JDEx) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 THE COURT SHOULD NOT v. DISMISS ACTION FOR LACK OF 14 PROSECUTION

FRANK KENDALL III.,

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On February 6, 2025, this Court issued a Reassignment Order, directing the parties 19 to file a Joint Case Management statement by February 20, 2025. Doc. # 27 20 (“Reassignment Order”) at 3. No statement was filed. The Reassignment Order also made 21 clear that “[a]ll pretrial conferences and trial dates currently set for September 8, 2025, or 22 thereafter, as well as other deadlines associated with the case, shall remain in effect.” Id. 23 Despite a final pre-trial conference having been set for December 8, 2025, however, the 24 parties have not filed any pre-trial filings, as contemplated by the Civil Trial Order issued 25 on December 9, 2024 by the then-presiding Hon. Monica Ramirez Almadani (Doc. # 24) 26 27 28 1 by this Court’s Scheduling and Trial Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge 2 || Valenzuela. Indeed, the parties have not filed anything in this case for over a year. 3 Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the December 8, 2025 Final Pretrial 4 || Conference, and ORDERS Petitioner Marvin L. Charles (“Plaintiff”) to show cause 5 || (“OSC”), in writing within fourteen (14) days of this order, why the Court should not 6 || dismiss this action for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. 7 Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). Failure to respond timely may result in dismissal for 8 failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Id. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 '? IlDated: 12/3/25 yptthin Valenzuela 13 HON. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ||! Available on the Court’s webpage, https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable-cynthia-valenzuela.